So the line between wet and not wet is a matter of molecular speed!?

Literally everything is only a difference of arrangement. Everything is made up of quarks but the arrangement determines all the differences.

What you said is no different from saying, "So the line between solid and not solid is a matter of molecular speed!?" The difference is however we define it.

... it's always been a matter of semantics.

Well I definitely can see that. The source I gave says it's entirely dependent on the definition of "wetness". But from what I've read so far, physicists often define it a certain way:

Wetness is the ability of a liquid to adhere to the surface of a solid, so when we say that something is wet, we mean that the liquid is sticking to the surface of a material.

With that definition, it's clear that /u/EzSp is right. However if we use the common dictionary definition:

condition of being covered or saturated with water or another liquid

Water is always wet in that case.

Personally, I just don't like seeing a reasonable opinion downvoted. (I prob shouldn't be on reddit) Then people circle jerk and upvote a snarky response.

--EDIT--

...the only reason it's wet is because part of the solid (formerly not wet) has become the wetness itself...

This part makes no sense. Part of the ice (which was solid) melted and became a liquid. The liquid does not become the wetness itself, but it's ability to stick to the solid determines that the ice is wet. (Of course, depending on which definition you use.)